Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Claimants are the appellants in the above appeal. The wife and children of the deceased Kushiram, who died in an accident that took place on 22-9-82, have filed M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83 on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Salem, claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Inasmuch as neither the owner nor the insurer of the lorry or the Transport Corporation, namely, Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore, filed any appeal in respect of the pect against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83, we are not referring any of the factual pects leading to the accident. 2. As stated above, the wife and children of the deceased Kushiram filed claim for Rs. 6,00,000/-before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. According to them, the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and he was doing textile business earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to prove income and compensation, the third claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83 was examined as P.W. 7. He is none else than the son of the deceased Kushiram. They also marked income-tax demand notices and payment of income-tax prior to the death of Kushiram. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W. 7 and in the light of the documents produced, by applying 10 years multiplier, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards monetary loss from which it deducted 1/4th towards lump-sum payment and uncertainty of life. After adding a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs. 3,000/- to each of the minor children towards loss of life and affection due to the death of their father, ultimately the Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of the petition in favour of the claimants and payable by Respondents 1 & 2. Against the disallowed claim, the claimants have now filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appeal appellants contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the claimants, considering the age, status and earnings of the deceased business man. He also contended that in the light of Exs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appeal appellants contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the claimants, considering the age, status and earnings of the deceased business man. He also contended that in the light of Exs. P-192 to 199 to 201, the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the claimants are entitled only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month due to the death of the deceased. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that in as much as the children of the deceased are continuing the business even after the death of their father, they had not lost anything due to the death of their father. He also raised an objection that the deceased was aged about 40, the application of 10 years multiplier is very low and ought to have applied reasonable multiplier for fixing the compensation. With these points he relied upon a decision in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Vasanihi Alias Anantha Lakshmi (1995) 1 M.L.J. 388 (Division Bench) and in Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash (1991 ACJ 3). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent, insurer contended that in the light of the evidence available on record and in view of the fact that the family business is being continued by the sons of the deceased Kushiram, the award of the Tribunal is quite reasonable. He also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in the case of M.G. Brothers Lorry Service v. S. Andalammal (1982 (Supp.) A.C.J. 408) (Madras). 4. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the counsel. Against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 65,000/-. It is to be seen that first claimant is a widow (second wife of the deceased) and other claimants, namely, claimants 2 to 9 are children of the deceased, out of which five are minors. While travelling in the bus belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, the deceased Kushiram met with an accident. In order to prove compensation, the third claimant, namely, Rajkumar, the son of the deceased was examined as P.W. 7. While travelling in the bus belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, the deceased Kushiram met with an accident. In order to prove compensation, the third claimant, namely, Rajkumar, the son of the deceased was examined as P.W. 7. He deposed before the Tribunal that his father was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and he was doing textile business. It is his evidence that his father was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from the said business and he was contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. He also deposed that his deceased father was assessed to income-tax. Exs. P-192 to P-194 were tax demand notices sent by the income-tax department for the Assessment Years, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983. In the said notices of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the total income of the deceased K. Kushiram and the tax payable have also been mentioned. Ex. P-192 relates to assessment year 1980-1981, wherein it is mentioned as Rs. 61,140/- as taxable income and a sum of Rs. 1,716/- has to be paid towards tax. Likewise Ex. P-193 relates to Assessment Year 1981-1982 wherein it is mentioned the total income as Rs. 51,970/- and a sum of Rs. 4618/- has to be paid as tax for the said year. Likewise, Ex. P-194 relates to Assessment Year 1982-1983, wherein the total income is mentioned as Rs. 59,010/-. Exs. P-199 to P. 201 are acknowledgments sent by the Income-tax department for receipt of payment of tax by the deceased Kushiram. In the light of the documents relating to assessment and payment of tax prior to the death of the deceased Kushiram, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month out of which he was contributing Rs. 3,000/- to his family. He also attacked the observation of the Tribunal, “In as much as the children of the deceased are continuing the business left by his father, there I could not be any loss to the family” as improper. 5,000/- per month out of which he was contributing Rs. 3,000/- to his family. He also attacked the observation of the Tribunal, “In as much as the children of the deceased are continuing the business left by his father, there I could not be any loss to the family” as improper. Accounting to the counsel, we have to assess a quantum of loss due to the death of the person, namely, Kushiram and the continuance of business by the children and getting sizable income from the business is immaterial, for which he pressed into service the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1991 A.C.J. 3) Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash . Though only the summary of the case has been reported, the fact remains in an identical circumstance, the High Court in that case found that the partnership business is being carried on and the claimants are deriving benefits from that business even after the death, they have not been put to any pecuniary loss. On that reasoning the High Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 48,600/-. Disagreeing with the views expressed by the High Court, the Apex Court in the judgment referred above, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Tribunal in toto and affirmed the award of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants. In this case, inspite of the oral evidence of P.W. 7 and Exs. P-192 to P-194 and P-199 to P-201, the Tribunal fixed a notional amount of Rs. 500/- P.M. as probable loss to the family and applied 10 years multiplier and fixed Rs. 60,000/-. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence referred by us and in view of the decision of the Apex Court, referred above, the amount of Rs. 500/-fixed by the Tribunal is improper. For this the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M.G. Brothers Lorry Service v. S. Andalammal (1982 ACJ (Supp.) 408 contended that in as much as the business is being continued even after the death of the deceased by the children, it can be taken only that there is a loss of 25 per cent of the income from the business resulting from the death of the deceased. We are unable to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that there is ample evidence to show that the deceased was earning around Rs. 5,000/- per month as borne out from the evidence of P.W. 7 and the documents referred by us earlier. In view of our conclusion on the first issue, there is no need to refer the judgment reported in 1995 1 M.L.J. 388. 5. In the light of the above discussions, we can safely fix that the deceased could have contributed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month from and out of the business to his family. If we calculate, the annual contribution comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 48 years at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier would be 10. In this way, the total contribution of the deceased for 10 years comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. Since we have applied and adopted reasonable multiplier, namely, 10 years only and most of the claimants being minors, we are of the view that no deduction is necessary towards uncertainty of life and for lump-sum payment. Hence, the total pecuniary loss to the family is fixed as Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal has already award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection for five minor children. If we add all these amounts, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,60,000/-, which is reasonable fair and adequate compensation. The claimants are also entitled to interest at 12 per cent for the aaward amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- fixed above from the date of petition i.e., 22-3-1983. As per the findings on the negligence aspect the respondents 1 and 2 herein alone are liable to deposit the award amount. As stated by the Tribunal, the claimants 1, 3 to 9 alone are entitled to compensation. Since there is some confusion in the order of the Tribunal regarding apportionment, we hereby modify and fix the shar e of the claimants in the following manner:— (a) The 1st claimant is entitled Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- towards pecuniary loss and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium). (b) Major claimants 3 and 4 each entitled Rs. 30,000/-. (c) Minor claimants 5 to 9 (totally 5 persons) each entitled Rs. 33,000/- (Rs. 30,000 towards pecuniary loss + Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- towards pecuniary loss and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium). (b) Major claimants 3 and 4 each entitled Rs. 30,000/-. (c) Minor claimants 5 to 9 (totally 5 persons) each entitled Rs. 33,000/- (Rs. 30,000 towards pecuniary loss + Rs. 3,000/- for love and affection. On deposit of the enhanced compensation, the minors shares have to be invested in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority and the 1st claimant i.e., mother is permitted to draw accrued interest periodically. 6. For the above reasons, we enhance the compensation award of Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 2,60,000/-with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition i.e., 22-3-1983. The amount already deposited by the Insurance Company has to be deducted while depositing the enhanced compensation. To this extent, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified as indicated above. No order as to costs.